Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent No. 7,398,723

This analysis examines whether the single independent claim of US Patent No. 7,398,723 ("the '723 patent") would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. The analysis is based on the prior art references identified in the patent's specification.

Legal Standard for Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. An obviousness determination requires finding a suggestion or motivation to combine prior art teachings, with a reasonable expectation of success. Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and the failure of others, must also be considered.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

At the time of the invention (April 2003), a PHOSITA in the field of firearm mechanisms would likely have a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent practical experience. This individual would possess several years of experience in firearm design, particularly with the trigger mechanisms, sears, disconnectors, and actions of semi-automatic firearms. A PHOSITA would be familiar with common firearm platforms (like the AR-15 and AK-47) and understand fundamental mechanical principles, including the use of levers, springs, and cams to translate motion and manage forces.

Analysis of Claim 1

Claim 1 of the '723 patent can be broken down into the following key elements:

1. A method of accelerating the firing cycle of a semi-automatic firearm.
2. Depressing a firearm trigger to discharge the firearm.
3. Activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm (e.g., a bolt or bolt carrier).
4. The reciprocating mechanism causes a cam, in a single rotational motion, to:
   a. simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready-to-fire position, and
   b. hold the trigger forward in that position.
5. This hold continues until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready-to-fire position.

Obviousness Combination

Primary Argument: Claim 1 is obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 4,023,465 (Inskip) as a base reference, modified with ordinary mechanical skill to solve a known problem.

The '723 patent itself provides a roadmap for this obviousness argument by identifying a specific deficiency in the Inskip patent and proposing a solution.

1. Base Reference: Inskip ('465)

Inskip teaches the core concept of the '723 invention. It discloses a firearm mechanism where the reciprocating bolt carrier is used to actively reset the trigger to its forward, ready-to-fire position to enable a faster firing rate. Specifically, Inskip teaches:

• A method to accelerate the firing cycle (Element 1).
• Depressing a trigger to fire (Element 2, inherent in any firearm).
• A reciprocating mechanism (the bolt carrier) that is activated by firing (Element 3).
• This mechanism interacts with the trigger assembly to force the trigger forward (part of Element 4a).
• The trigger is held forward until the bolt carrier returns to battery, or a closed, ready-to-fire position (Element 5).

The primary difference between Inskip and the '723 patent's claim lies in the specific nature of the component that resets the trigger and how it functions. The claim calls this component a "cam" that acts in a "single rotational motion" to "simultaneously push and hold" the trigger.

2. Motivation to Modify Inskip

The specification of the '723 patent explicitly identifies a problem with the Inskip design. It states:

"The difference between the present invention and the Inskip invention is that the Inskip mechanism... allows the operator's trigger finger pressure to be transmitted vertically to the bolt carrier... causing friction between the bolt carrier and the adjacent surfaces of the receiver of the firearm... the resulting friction and displacement is sufficient to cause the bolt carrier to bind and cease travel in some firearms causing a highly undesirable stoppage." (Col. 8, ll. 10-25).

A PHOSITA, recognizing this binding problem, would be motivated to modify Inskip's design to make it more reliable. The motivation is straightforward: to solve a known operational failure (binding) in a prior art system.

3. Obviousness of the Modification

The solution to the binding problem is to mechanically isolate the upward force from the trigger finger from the reciprocating bolt carrier. The '723 patent achieves this using a pivoting cam that contacts a trigger extender. When the bolt pushes the cam, the cam rotates and pushes the trigger extender down, resetting the trigger. Once the cam rotates past a certain point, the upward force from the trigger finger is borne by the cam's pivot pin and housing, not transmitted back to the bolt carrier.

This solution represents an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA for the following reasons:

• Use of a Cam: Cams are fundamental mechanical components used to convert rotary motion into linear motion and to manage mechanical forces. Using a pivoting cam to solve a force transmission and binding issue is a standard and well-known principle in mechanical engineering.
• "Single Rotational Motion": A pivoting cam, by its very nature, operates in a single rotational motion as it is acted upon by the bolt carrier.
• "Simultaneously Push and Hold": This is an inherent property of the cam's function in this context. As the bolt carrier moves rearward, it rotates the cam, which pushes the trigger forward. The cam remains in this rotated position (holding the trigger forward) until the bolt carrier moves forward on its return stroke to rotate the cam back. The pushing and holding are part of a single, continuous action dictated by the cam's profile and the bolt's movement.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, starting with Inskip's system and motivated to solve the known binding problem, would find it obvious to replace Inskip's direct-acting linkage with a simple rotating cam mechanism. This modification would predictably result in the mechanism described in Claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness

While the technical argument for obviousness is strong, secondary considerations could serve as a counterargument. The provided litigation summary notes that the assignee, ABC IP, LLC, is involved in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 3176) concerning "forced reset triggers" (FRTs). This suggests:

• Long-Felt But Unsolved Need / Failure of Others: The problem of creating a reliable, rapid-fire trigger mechanism that is not a machine gun was a long-felt need. The '723 patent's claimed invention addresses the binding failure of the prior art Inskip mechanism.
• Copying and Commercial Success: The existence of widespread litigation against multiple defendants may indicate that the technology was copied, which can be evidence of non-obviousness and commercial success. If multiple entities found it necessary to implement a similar cam-based solution rather than designing around it, it suggests the invention was not a trivial or obvious step.

However, these factors must be weighed against the strong evidence of obviousness from the prior art. While the litigation indicates the commercial importance of the technology, it does not necessarily overcome a clear motivation to combine prior art elements using well-known engineering principles to solve a known problem.

Conclusion

A strong case for the obviousness of Claim 1 of US7398723 exists under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Inskip '465 patent teaches the fundamental method of using a reciprocating bolt carrier to force a trigger forward to accelerate the firing rate. The '723 patent itself identifies a known binding problem in the Inskip design, providing a clear motivation for a PHOSITA to modify it for improved reliability. The specific modification—using a rotating cam to isolate forces—is a well-established and obvious solution from the field of mechanical engineering. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing this modification. While secondary considerations related to litigation and potential copying provide a counterargument, they may not be sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness.